Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] 3D graphics or CAD software
Internal 3D Bit depth is about 32 or 40 bits, iirc.
Windows shows 32 bit color at full speed. I have never had need to adjust anythign from "best" as I have had zero performance issues.
My particular combo was around 14 in a test of 100 fastest engineering workstations at the time, iirc.
Great results for the cost. Many of the top spots were custom hw high value systems, in the way above 10k range.
Graphics card memory shows up as 8GB in Win7.
Current costs for the NVIDIA 2000 are about 400$-500$ iirc.
Well worth it.
I believe Quadro 2000 had about 90 graphics processors internally, and thats why they scale up very well into the larger 3D models.
And of course can run high bandwidth hires screens.
It was the best bang for buck of the "good" cards where you get into engineering WS territory.
I run off a solid state drive, and performance is phenomenal.
My performance is excellent - as I make some of my income from use of my PC, cost is irrelevant as long as I can pay it in the first instance.
I paid about 5000������ for the PC, and 3000 for the displays, 22 months ago.
It more than paid for itself, multiple times, in the first year.
I expect about 30% less cost today..
Second hdd, std, 2TB,���� has mostly data and install files and movies.
Mine came from InterPro workstations UK.
A similar, 1/3 the performance Dell, would have cost 60% more, or 8000������, at the time.
I am an ex PC person, tech manager for a major importer of PC hardware into Finland.
I imported the first sound cards, CD roms, 486 processor machine etc. about 25 years ago ...
And built custom dual stack network drivers, running Xenix 386 and or LanMan with NetBeui or Novell Netware.
Etc etc
I dont play with PC hw any more, and prefer to buy what I need at a good price.
I was very happy with Interpro in the UK.
Excellent bank/buck.
No relationship otherwise.
I have no idea if other newer Nvidia cards would deliver better results.
I doubt it - but dont really know. Afaik they just have more processors.
Most important benefit would be ability to run more screens.
I dont really need it - but would look impressive for demos.
I never do any.
I dont know anyone or any place I could see anything relevant, over here in Barcelona.
Sota is not too hot, and there is a lot of shiny kit syndrome and brand appreciation over here.
Essentially, lack of know-how results in paying too much for mediocre results, generally, over here.
����Hi "hanermo,"
You wrote:
> I use Rhino 3D.
I'll add it to my list of possibilities.
> My main PC is a custom one built in the UK, ...
I've been assuming I'll need custom building as I
am thinking of both more advanced photography (a
Nikon D800e will give me some really big files to
process) and also doing some 3D work. (I am not a
machinist but the engineers at work do CAD in 3D
and have a 3D printer to do prototypes.)
> ... overclocked at 4GHz, 16 GB, Win7 64 bit, ...
Yes, I have gotten some recommendations for 16GB of
RAM and, AFAIK, that needs an OS on 64-bit mode to
address it.
> ... with Nvidia card for 2 x 2600x1900 resolution
> on two HP 32 inch monitors.
My graphics card thoughts are wide open. Which card
do you have? I have been googling on this and have
seen a number of recommendations. Most thoughts are
based on high-level gamer cards and so far I haven't
seen specs showing the bit-depth (more important for
photos than for CAD and CAM or even games) but I did
see a disclaimer that certain models were "not for
commercial use. That's not a very informative bit
but does stand out as a sort of red flag.
Apparently graphics cards suited for that commercial
use are better described as work-station graphics
cards. Of course those cards would involve a higher
price level so I'm wondering at what point "better"
becomes "overkill."
> BUT..
> Many of my models are 300-900 MB in size.
>
> Rhino will run fine in XP with 1-2 GB, and do 3D
> work just fine.
So, quite possibly I could develop simple ideas with
out placing unusual stress on whatever system I
choose. Does Rhino use a vector system to describe
things? Of course, I know that screen representation
(and most hard-copy methods) would have to be redone
in a raster image format. It does seem unwieldy to
use raster graphics to design and store 3D images.
--
Thanks for your patience,
Gene Falck
gfalck@...
>
> A small model is a screw mount.
> About 1 MB on size.
>
> A model for me, might have 200-400 3D assemblies in it. Some might be
> near this 1 MB each.
>
> Many will be simplified - for example I made a 3D ballscrew semi
> accurately (I did not do the special arch of the ballscrew, but
> approximated it as a circle).
> A simplified ballscrew is about 50MB iirc.
>
> Import 3 ballscrews, with mounts, and build the structure, sheetmetal,
> and supports.
> Thats a gigabyte model.
> Its about the same size in solidworks, as used industrially.
>
> So - what do you do ?
>
> I build stuff, and use the 3D tools to make stuff better.
> Its a lot better to make sure stuff works on the screen, than in metal.
>
> Rhino is one of the fastest, lightest and easiest solutions out there.
> Biggest drawback is lack of associations (there is a plugin - gotta try
> that) in geometry.
>
> There is no right answer.
> Rhino is about 100x better than any 2D (auto ;( )cad, for one thing.
> I����������������m experienced in 3D with almost 30 years experienece.
> (Started w. CATIA in 1986 or so on IBM dedicated hw).
> Rhino has a free 3D cam. Freemill.
>
> I know that inventor is good, but expensive.
> Soliworks is too expensive.
>
> And it depends on if you want cam, 4th axis, plasma (and if with THC), etc.
> If you wanna link to excel (really should !) and so on..
>
> I believe alibre might be good for something. No personal experience.
>
>> What do you other list members use for design work and "how much
>> computer" would I need?
>
>
-- -hanermo